Your verdict: the draft presumption in favour of sustainable development

By , Thursday, 16 June 2011, 53 Comments

Earlier this week, decentralisation minister Greg Clark published the long-awaited draft presumption in favour of sustainable development –  a key plank of the coalition Government’s reform of the planning system. 

The full wording of the draft presumption reads as follows:

“There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of the planning system, which should be central to the approach taken to both plan-making and decision-taking. Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible.

Local planning authorities should:

  • Prepare local plans on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, and with sufficient flexibility to respond to rapid shifts in demand or other economic changes
  • Approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay and
  • Grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date

All of these policies should apply unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policy objectives in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole.”

Following the publication of the draft presumption in favour of sustainable development, campaign groups have warned that the wording of the definition could open up the floodgates to development that is harmful to the environment. These groups include the Town and Country Planning Association, whose chief planner Hugh Ellis said that the draft presumption “places economic growth as the driver, undermining the principles of sustainable development”.

Lobby group the Campaign to Protect Rural England, meanwhile, accused the Government of using the term “sustainable” as a fig leaf for a pro-growth agenda. And RTPI president Richard Summers said that the wording of the draft statement was ”unduly complicated” and “needs improvement”.

There are clearly significant questions about how the draft presumption will work in practice. In particular, it is difficult to assess the likely impact of the draft statement when the National Planning Policy Framework, which it references, has not yet been published for consultation.

As always, we welcome your views. Please share your thoughts on the draft presumption in favour of sustainable development by commenting below.

  • Pandora

    What a fiasco. In my part of the world not only do we not have a national framework, we don’t have a local development core strategy either. What this basically means is that every square centimetre of this green and pleasant land MUST have some sort of statutory designation (AONB, village green, whatever) and that designation must be shown in law to be unassailable – an almost impossible task. If not, developers will be able to pounce on any overlooked area and expect to be able to develop it. Can you imagine it: someone forgot or wasn’t able to list the village green and the duckpond – tough, here is your development on it. Someone forgot or wasn’t able to list the only football pitch in town – tough.

    I was at a conference yesterday (National Association of Local Councils in Bristol) where a DCLG minister was asked how neighbourhood plans should be financed. He said that, apart from the pathfinder communities who each had (as I recall) £20,000 and much support to develop theirs, then other plans could be financed “by developers”. Yes, I can assure you that everyone there heard that.

    Oh happy days …..

  • http://adamroake Adam Roake

    I rather liked Rob Cowan’s cartoon on the definition http://twitpic.com/5c2plx

  • http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com andrewlainton

    Its black Wednesday for planning http://wp.me/pNECF-no

    The definition says in black and white sustainable development=reducing the deficit. The only purpose to protect ‘our’ environment is to ensure that future generations can continue to consume like we do. Sustainable development reduced to a business plan to keep things as they are, especially for those that own the resources, and certainly not the poor who inconveniently use them up.

    As 80% of areas have no core strategy, and the other 20% were published before the Budget Growth Report and so are ‘out of date’. As the NPPF abolishes protection of the countryside for its own sake we will have a free for all. What is more councillors wont allocate employment land to drive growth as it cannot be protected as such and will go to housing. What a perverse disincentive, so you would have to allocate a near infinite amount of employment land to ensure a jobs/homes balance with people driving miles and miles for work to the few workplaces left.

    As the presumption as worded means you cant refuse a scheme in the hope of a better one, but have to approve promptly, it will lower the bar to the shoddiest, cheapest, nastiest development. Like 80s starter homes with their porches falling off. Legoland planning by the real enemies of enterprise. Future generations will curse this set of ministers http://wp.me/pNECF-nd

    Porritt is right, this marks the last rights for sustainable development. What a cynical master-stroke, defining almost all development as sustainable.

  • Paul de Zylva

    The term ‘sustainable development’ is unused to getting so much attention. Never before have so many politicians, civil servants and businesses uttered the words.

    But this frequency of use is a poor guide because what we are actually seeing is the deliberate misuse of the term as part of the general free and easy dismantling of our planning system.

    The new system should be setting out a vision backed by certainty that the form of new developmeint will set us on course for a low carbon, wildlife rich society and genuinely sustainable economic recovery.

    Instead we look set for a development free for all (which is what certain interests have wanted all along) with development of indeterminate quality and quantity and only a vague framework to guide what happens on the ground.

    Having reduced the planning system to a mere function of whatever developers demand, and can get away with using an emasculated planning system and a demoralised profession, the final insult is to brand anything which gets through as sustainable.

    Used properly, sustainable development is a practical tool for making better decisions. Instead it is being reduced to meaninglessness.

    We already have too much low quality or inappropriate development getting through the planning system one way or another. Having more of the same under the new planning reforms but rebranded as ‘sustainable’ will not fool anyone..

    As with putting the term ‘eco’ in front of ‘town’ or ‘sustainable’ ahead of ‘aviation’ putting ‘sustainable’ ahead of ‘development’ will not magically make that any more believable.

    This simply raises the stakes for all developers to prove that they are serious about new ways of developing responsibly.

  • RichardW

    Hard to think of anything to say that won’t be moderated

  • Pandora

    We are watching the speedy dismantling of the state system on a scale and at a speed that makes Mrs Thatcher look like a moderate – and hardly anyone realises it. It encompasses every area – planning, education, energy and climate change, health – you name it, the state is opting out or being legislated out or being frozen out, leaving it to the “wild west” of developers, bankers, hedge fund managers and other very wealthy individuals to do as they wish – those who have never wanted or needed the state.

    It really shocks me that people haven’t cottoned on to this – but I guess each of them sees only their own part of the jigsaw. This is bigger than the poll tax but has had less outrage.

  • Whelk

    Frankly, the draft presumption doesnt seem too far from what we already do – generally just a subtle shift in emphasis.

    The problem is that we are still waiting for a definition of sustainable development.

    • SimonP

      Whelk, judging by what we have seen so far, the chance is they will try to redefine it to align with what you describe as a ‘suble shift in emphasis’. I, for one, don’t see it as subtle or insignificant…or find it acceptable that they feel free to meddle with an already well established definition of sustainable development.

  • Stephen Hewitt

    Sustainable is used rather loosely as an adjective and there is a danger that it will be interpreted as meaning “long-lasting” or ” financially-viable”. It would be a lot clearer to talk about a ‘low-carbon economy’ or ‘low-carbon growth’. Sustainable should be limited to its environmental/ecological sense.

    The presumption in favour of sustainable development implies that presumpation against unsustainable development. There needs to be advice about how the presumption is put into practice. In my opinion here are three aspects to the sustainability of any development:
    · Its location
    · The building (design, materials and construction)
    · How it is used

    A sustainable development needs to meet all three tests. A building may have an excellent BREEAM rating and be zero carbon, but if its location means the only realistic way of getting to it is by car then it is not sustainable. A development that is dependant on high levels of car parking will be unsustainable.

    Many people would argue that the supermarket business model is inherently unsustianable – with its reliance on just-in-time centralised road-transport distribution, global supply chains and industrial agricultural production to provide all the year round fruit and vegetables of a consistent appearance, size, shape and quality – all of which is dependant on cheap fossil fuels.

    So does the government’s statement mean the end of supermarkets and superstores?

  • SimonP

    The Government are at risk of making serious twits of themselves! They should not underestimate the weight the man on the street gives to having a good quality of life. It seems they have forgotten the old adage: MONEY DOESN’T MAKE YOU HAPPY!

    • Tom

      You may be right that money does not make you happy, but I’d like to be given a chance to find that out for myself.

      • SimonP

        Unfortunately, if we afforded every individual on this planet the opportunity to learn through their mistakes we would be ‘up the creek with no paddle…’ so to speak! We are already failing a large proportion of the planets inhabitants…

  • http://www.plan-it-law.com David Brock

    It’s important to remember that the strong presumption in favour of sustainable development is already there. Government policy is found in a number of places, including Ministerial speeches and it’s hard to conceive of a stronger expression of Government policy than a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. What we are getting now is actually the fleshing out of that policy.

    Then let’s think about what is meant by sustainable development. It’s a phrase defined by the Brundtland Commission in 1987. Brundtland was a UN commission and development did not mean “building, engineering or mining operations in, on, over or under land, or a material change of use”. It meant (and means) economic and social development. The report is clear on this (Our Common Future, and not a difficult read) as is the Wikipedia entry on Brundtland.

    But we should remember that planning is about economic development. The modern system began with 1947 legislation which had that at its heart, to ensure that post-war recontruction was not hindered.

    David Brock, Mills & Reeve LLP

    • Whelk

      I would agree with most of that – sustainable development is still development, and still fundamentally an economic activity.

      I would say, however, that the sector has progressed from 1947 in that we are concerned with a wider range of factors, not all of which are easily converted into cold hard cash amounts. This is where the difficulties seem to stem, and where conflicts start.

      • SimonP

        Hang on folks! Development isn’t just about one thing (economics) what about social progress and developing new ways of avoiding the destruction of the very place that sustains our existence? Just the same way sustainability isn’t just about tackling the deficit (which is what our illustrious leaders would have us believe….)You cannot plan for economic development effectively without also considering the other two corners of the triangle…social and economic…!

  • SimonP

    It is not helpful or clever to try and prioritise one element of sustainable development over another. All three pillars (economic, social and environmental) need to be addressed together in order for things to work. The Government is trying to give greater priority to one single element which is irrosponsible and short-sighted.

  • Whelk

    In a planning sense, development pretty much IS primarily economic development. It is all about land use, and as it stands, that doesnt really allow us to drive social progress and environmental issues directly. We have our influence by requiring the economic side to curb certain tendencies, but that influence is not fixed, and can change with public opinion, statutory powers, and simple political will.

    Planning simply does not have the power or the authority to be the creator of sustainability, and we should be careful to remember that. However, we are influential enough to be a very strong driver that should force knock ons effects in other sectors. By working in closer partnership with our environmental and social colleagues we can all have a real impact.

    • SimonP

      This is true, then again I am not predicating that Planners should solve all our problems. The principle of sustainable development goes far wider than the current Planning remit and so it is not helpful to try to redefine it as a ‘planning-centric’ concept or maintain that the concept should mean something different for planners. The principle behind a presumtion in favour of sustainable development is in my view not a bad thing…it is the attempt (or the risk of an attempt) at re-defining the definition of sustainable development which bothers me…This apparent attempt to hijack the definition for narrow political purposes is what we must concern ourselves with.
      I also agree that planners, who are incidentally already very good at it, must continue to work in closer partnership with other colleagues…

      • Whelk

        Sustainable Development, as a whole, is adequately served by Brundtland. This is a good definition, and I am more than happy for this to be the standard definition. Unfortunately, it is not a definition that is much use to planners.

        I would not suggest adding a planning-centric sub-definition as that would water Brundtland down, however I would suggest that some greater guidance and understanding as to how this can be implemented by planners would be appreciated if we are to work most effectively.

        Regardless – having now seen what the government is attempting to pass off as a definition of sustianable development, it would seem that we are further away from this than ever.

  • http://www.plan-it-law.com David Brock

    One of the beauties of the planning system is that takes into account a very wide range of things. The need for economic development is one, the need for proper housing is another, the need to look after the environment, another. We do this through the concept of material considerations. As we all know, the definition of a material consideration allows many things to be taken into account – see Tesco v. Witney. Economics has always played its part, strongly. That point was made forcefully in the Sovmots litigation about Centrepoint and plays out in enabling development cases such as Covent Garden. But we must remember that the weight to be given to a material consideration is for the decision maker.

    The system allows the decision maker to give different priorities at different times. For example, when a species is under threat it can be protected. And when under serious threat, protected strongly But when it recovers we can be more flexible. Doesn’t that apply to the need for growth as well? It doesn’t mean that any development will trump every environmental factor, but that the factors need to be weighted and the balance struck. At any given time, more weight or priority will be given to one factor over others. That is what the system allows and in presenting our cases we work within that framework.

    David Brock, Mills & Reeve LLP

    • SimonP

      David, in theory you are absolutely correct, but in practice what we see is an attempt to make economic considerations trump all others…to the point where even the minimum mitigatory requirements required to make a development acceptable in planning terms is being put under pressure and is at risk of being undermined. This is wrong.

    • http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com andrewlainton

      David, you need to read the definition more closely, it doesn’t leave it open to the decision maker to weigh in the manner you suggest

      As it ‘presumption in favour (where a plan is out of date – i.e. almost always as we will now have the NPPF)…..unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policy objectives in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole.’

      But the policy objective is to pursue sustainable development in a manner which places economic considerations above others, and it doesn’t even use the Brundland definition but a distorted version of it, almost stripping out social development and biophysical issues as opposed to economic development issues.

      What is more you cant use the ‘material considerations’ get out much because of the ‘when assessed’ clause – if sustainable development, is defined, as it is as cutting the deficit then pretty much any development that services a profit an would pay tax would be. Many issues – such as protection of the countryside for its own sake, protection of the undeveloped coast, social inclusion, walkable neighbourhoods, crime prevention etc. are even defined as principles or even mentioned. So an inspector would have to give them secondary importance. Its a lawyers charter. See my blog.

  • Pandora

    What really worries me is the sentance in the definition, “Grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date”. Who decides what is meant by absent , what does “indeterminate” really mean and when and how and why do policies become out of date?

    Also “All of these policies should apply unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policy objectives in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole.”. Who decides what “significantly and demonstrably means”? What criteria will be used? How can we ensure that different planning authorities don’t use different mechanisms? What does “National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole” mean – how is it different from individual elements of the National Planning Policy Framework?

    Well, at least the planning lawyers will be happy!

  • http://www.plan-it-law.com David Brock

    Thanks Simon. But are you really saying you can’t impose conditions to make unacceptable development acceptable?

    • SimonP

      Perhaps David, but when a NPPF comes out which puts the emphasis on economics the ability at the local level to resist will be weakened. Besides the new CIL system is set to replace all but site-related mitigation requirements. Once the political willpower at the local level to set conditions is watered down or refocused by national policies…or the definition of what is ‘acceptable development’ is changed…then what?

  • Pandora

    It sounds quite attractive to adapt development (and please let’s call it that, not “growth”) to economic needs but let us not forget the banking fiasco. Few of us knew the REAL state of the economy at that time and those who did made sure that the rest of us were kept in the dark. It would be quite easy to be misled.

  • http://www.sharbahomes.co.uk phil j

    It is stunning how the population, both layman and professionals, jump upon the opportunity of current planning reform in unison to fight against our countries chronic need for residential development with such virulent anti-development and nimbyistic attitudes. Failures of previous planning regimes, and perhaps its constantly changing parameters that set it back to square one so often without ant decent Plans in place, are bad enough to absorb, but this opportunistic propoganda designed to rally the fears in the population are devasting to both our chronic housing shortage and our economy that is fed by such development.
    The ignorance is so pitifully damaging it is untrue – we have NEVER met our annual housing needs in the last 50 years, and now have a shortfall in excess of £1m, with an annual increment of c.£1/4m, being met with a supply barely exceeding 100k – yet these do-gooders want to see it reduced further by perpetuating the constraints and mistakes of the past. John Prescott famously said that our planning system was a thousand ways to say NO, and whilst he was very right, he did nothing to improve that, and the current PIF proposal is the first attempt to address this absolutely pivotal issue.
    We need more not less development, especially housjng, unless these people all think that these households should not have roofs over their heads? or perhaps they think that the shortfall in supply to demand could be better met with some culling of the population to reduce the imbalance in the only alternative way?
    Centuries ago, our towns and villages had 1/10 of their size, and have thus grown ten fold, yet somehow it should apparently stop here, and the necessary 10% growth should be met perhaps by the aforementioned culling rather than a little peripheral infilling? Local Plans and Core Strategies have become an excuse to to delay and refuse consents and necessary development – change is needed.
    Perhaps instead all the objectors have a strong enough opinion to give up their own homes in such a good cause to prevent such nominal development……I think not….
    Long live the presumption in favour as the first sensible planning proposal in decades – technical hoops and taregts will still need to be jumped through and met, but at least the presumption will not be “how can we refuse this” as we have had for decades.

    • Tom

      More development does not have to mean bad development. But thats what you will get under this definition.

      I think you are mistaking people wanting to ensure that development that goes ahead is sustainable (by the accepted Brutland definition), high quality and well designed, for nimby people who just say no, no matter what is proposed.

      I don’t see anyone argueing in this thread for no development, just that a ‘development no matter the costs’ approach is wrong and counter productive.

      • SimonP

        Thanks Tom…well said!

    • SimonP

      I think you are missing the point totally phil j. This is not anti-development sentiment being expressed here…just concern that it is a ham handed way of going about it! We don’t need short-sighted approaches with potentially irreversible damage…we need an intelligent way of accomodating GROWTH (Pandora)…which is an important element of the WIDER CONCEPT of development. I say again, the ‘presumtion in favour’ is not the issue here…it is what will come next which is a re-definition of sustainable development….

  • phil j

    It is stunning how the population, both layman and professionals, jump upon the opportunity of current planning reform in unison to fight against our countries chronic need for residential development with such virulent anti-development and nimbyistic attitudes. Failures of previous planning regimes, and perhaps its constantly changing parameters that set it back to square one so often without ant decent Plans in place, are bad enough to absorb, but this opportunistic propoganda designed to rally the fears in the population are devasting to both our chronic housing shortage and our economy that is fed by such development.
    The ignorance is so pitifully damaging it is untrue – we have NEVER met our annual housing needs in the last 50 years, and now have a shortfall in excess of £1m, with an annual increment of c.£1/4m, being met with a supply barely exceeding 100k – yet these do-gooders want to see it reduced further by perpetuating the constraints and mistakes of the past. John Prescott famously said that our planning system was a thousand ways to say NO, and whilst he was very right, he did nothing to improve that, and the current PIF proposal is the first attempt to address this absolutely pivotal issue.
    We need more not less development, especially housjng, unless these people all think that these households should not have roofs over their heads? or perhaps they think that the shortfall in supply to demand could be better met with some culling of the population to reduce the imbalance in the only alternative way?
    Centuries ago, our towns and villages had 1/10 of their size, and have thus grown ten fold, yet somehow it should apparently stop here, and the necessary 10% growth should be met perhaps by the aforementioned culling rather than a little peripheral infilling? Local Plans and Core Strategies have become an excuse to to delay and refuse consents and necessary development – change is needed.
    Perhaps instead all the objectors have a strong enough opinion to give up their own homes in such a good cause to prevent such nominal development……I think not….
    Long live the presumption in favour as the first sensible planning proposal in decades – technical hoops and taregts will still need to be jumped through and met, but at least the presumption will not be “how can we refuse this” as we have had for decade.

  • Tom

    There seems to be a lot of panic to do with the new presumption but no one has mentioned/noticed where the burden of proof now lies. The last time we had a strong presumption in favour of development it was in Circular 14/85 and back then it was the responsibility of the local authority to show that a development would cause “demonstrable harm to issues of acknowledged importance” – that was the councils ‘burden’ and a lot of crap was built because they couldn’t overcome it. However, it appears to me that the real burden is now on the applicant to prove that a development is sustainable, according to the definition in the draft NPPF. Sure ‘planning for prosperity’ would be an easy one and ‘planning for people’ won’t be too difficult either, but ‘planning for places’ would be very difficult to fake. If a development doesn’t “protect and enhance our natural and built environment” than it’s not sustainable and it doesn’t benefit from the presumption. Am I wrong?

    • Kate W

      I hope you are right that the burden of proof will lie on the developer. It would be good if this was spelled out clearly in the NPPF.

      In the current situation, it is true with front loading that the applicant needs to provide proof that their developmet won’t be damaging. However, there are often situations when developers provide inadequate proofs, but the local authority don’t have expertise to identify this.

      As an example, there is a notorious ecological consultant locally who is known as “the developers friend” because he submits surveys (e.g. for bats/otters/habitats etc) which are contrary to the known reality. In the past he has been legally challenged about this and has lost. However, because there is no chartering body for ecological consultants which they have to belong to, he can keep practicing as a consultant, without censure and without developers or planners knowing that he is a rotten apple.

      Planning officers cannot be experts in everything and have to take information submitted by the developer on trust. Whilst the burden of proof is on the developer, it can easily be faked.

  • Pandora

    It will be interesting to revisit this correspondence in one or two years time and see if the rhetoric matches the outcome – on both sides. No amount of new housing will fulfil need unless there are jobs that can sustain them.

  • Origami 45

    A little disingenuous, phil j. No planning professional who I know, or whose contributions I’ve read here, are fighting “against our countries chronic need for residential development with such virulent anti-development and nimbyistic attitudes”. They are raising very reasonable concerns about the dismantling of the planning system by the current government…

    The point is, phil j, that this is where “material considerations” come in. The lack of an adequate supply of housing is a material consideration which should attract significant weight and greater weight the greater the deficit in housing supply.

    Unfortunately, housing schemes are usually refused by local councillors who are responding to the (often/usually) NIMBYist attitudes of local residents. These local councillors are usually Conservative and so it seems a little ironic (is that the right word?) that this government is now trying to dismantle the planning system in order to get around their local councillor colleagues!

    This draft presumption is worst new idea in the planning world since the 1980s.

    One other point not made here as yet: There are huge numbers of vacant derelict residential properties around the country – estimates say between 500,000 and 1 million. Are the owners sitting on these properties? If so, why? If they’re not, where is the drive to convert these for use and reduce this national housing deficit that you say is c.1 million?

  • http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com andrewlainton

    Tom

    No I think the wording means the presumption goes the other way

    Where a development plan is silent etc. you have to approve unless it contravenes the principles of sustainable development etc.

    You are right though the places clause is a key defence thats hard to fake, the problem is ‘promply approve…where possible’ so no real possibility to negotiate a better scheme – a race to the bottom.

  • http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com andrewlainton

    Tom

    Sorry I meant the onus of proof goes the other way.

  • downtown train

    I’m still not clear on how this has defined what is ‘sustainable’? Surely this depends on the circumstances of the case; what’s sustainable in one case will be unsustainable in another. I don’t see this presumption reducing the number of appeals as LPAs will still refuse things as they deem them unsustainable.
    However, the requirement to grant permission where the plan is silent, unclear or out of date is going to cause problems – especially the last two. Want to bet that the Govt will leave it up to the courts to decide what these mean? So the LPA will say that the plan is clear and up to date and the developer will argue otherwise. Back to square one in terms of the Govt aim of reducing the number of appeals and making things easier.
    As for when the plan is silent. LPAs are risk averse people. Plans in preparation will not be silent on many issues if this goes through as is. More work, more policies, again not what the Govt intended.

  • Mike Jones

    When I first came into planning there was a presumption in favour of approving development and as far as I am concerned that presumption was enshrined as an important planning principle. This presumption disappeared with the requirement that decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations prove otherwise. In my opinion there should be no good reason why the two cannot sit alongside each other as the development plan, by inference, should guide development but there will often be circumstances where other considerations determine that decisions departing from the development plan should be permitted. Hence the overriding principle that there should be a presumption in favour of granting development will, if it is to be deemed sustainable, be consistent with policies in the development plan as long as those policies are up-dated and relevant.

    Unfortunately we never seem to get the planning system right. Perhaps there’s no perfect model. Certainly the existing LDF process is far too unwieldy, slow and potentially over-perscriptive and the fact that most LPAs have yet to get even the Core Strategy adopted is evidence of this. Development Plans do not need to be all things to all men. That’s why we have development control planners who used to be able to use common sense in determining decisions, having regard to all material planning considerations and not just slavishly adhering to the development plan as the God of all things right. It rarely is and there should be some latitude given to the decision maker or else we cabn replace all DC planners with a box ticking system.

    What the present Government has done to the planning system in the last 12 months is an utter disgrace. It is in danger of tearing up a lot that is good because it didn’t like some aspects of the previous system. Not only is the Government wrong in what it’s doing, but of course the way it has sought to do it has created a shambles. However, what is vital now, is that the profession needs to somehow unite to persuade the Government that what it’s doing needs to be thought through rather than have policies determined by Ministerial speeches and court cases. This of course will not be easy since the impression is that certain ministers in the DCLG may not be taking the advice of their Civil Servants, but maybe the growing list of u-turns on emerging Government policies that have not been thoroughly worked through, may alter this practise. One can only hope. If common sense does not win the day then we are all in for an extremely challenging time and the biggest loser will be the credibility and public perception of the planning profession.

    • RichardW

      As others have said, the problem is not “the presumption in favour” it’s the very narrow definition of “sustainable development” that CLG are veering towards. If (in planning terms) sustainable development was defined along the lines: “The right amount amount of development (and no more than this) in the right place (and nowhere else) at the right time (and not otherwise). All of which is to be judged having full regard to every aspect of Brundtland. And built to a quality of design (in its widest sense) which creates positive people centred neighbourhoods built to last and provided with the infrastructure they need” then we’d be cooking.

  • Michael Donnelly

    An amendment to enshrine a definition of sustainable development within the Localism Bill would create a ‘lawyers’ paradise’, communities minister Baroness Hanham has said. http://www.planningresource.co.uk/Environment/article/1076005/minister-sustainable-development-clause-create-lawyers-paradise/

    • http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com andrewlainton

      The definition she is opposing is being put forward on behalf of wildlife link in Jan http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/2011/Link_Localism_Bill_amendment_HoC_Committee_Stage_Sustainable_Development_25Jan11.pdf

      It not a bad definition. It includes the notion of environmental limits, very similar to the definition in the Australian Resource Management Act which I think it is based on, that has been subject to caselaw of course after many years in operation but it hardly been a lawyers paradise. In any event if it is locked into policy not legislation will always involve lawyers.

      For a punchier definition try that in the Quebec Sustainable Development Act which again has proven robust

      ‘an ongoing process to improve the living conditions of the present generation that does not compromise the ability of future generations to do so and that ensures a harmonious integration of the environmental, social and economic dimensions of development.”

      A minor bit of tweaking and I think we are there with a definition even Greg Clarke and Wildlife link could both support

      ‘an ongoing process to improve the living conditions of the present generation that does not compromise the ability of future generations to do so, and that ensures, as far as possible, a harmonious integration of the environmental, social and economic dimensions of development within the limits set by the environment and technology.”

  • Pandora

    I’ve worked out what the problem is. Someone used the word “sustainable” growth instead of “accelerated” growth! When you change the words around it makes total sense with no need to get lawyers involved in interpretation!

    • Tom

      To be fair I think that the error was much smaller than that, they merely missed off the letters ‘un’ from their definition of sustainable.

  • RichardW

    Does anyone know if Baroness Hanham genuinely made a Ministerial statement saying LPA’s should “not grant permission where the plan is absent, silent or indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date.”

    http://planningblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/your-verdict-the-draft-presumption-in-favour-of-sustainable-development/#comments

    • kn8

      Hmmm – yes she did (see Hansard for 20th June, Column 1076) – surely a slip of the tongue.

  • http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com andrewlainton

    Here it the Hanham statement repeats Greg Clarkes 23rd March Planning for Growth – but in parliament

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110323-wms0001.htm

  • Pandora

    Well, it’s in black and white on the Dept of Communities and Local Govt website at:
    http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/planningpolicy/presumptionfavour/

    • kn8

      Pandora – I think you and Andrew Lainton have missed the “not” that seems to have been slipped in by Baroness Hanham. A bit like the missing “un” in sustainable.

      • http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com andrewlainton

        Yes what a slip

  • Pandora

    How about asking the lady herself?
    hanhamj@parliament.uk

  • http://planningrulesblog.blogspot.com/ Planning Rules

    Just how damaging the presumption will be depends on what the NPPF says. If it is predictably pro-growth and anti-environment then most Councils won’t have Core Strategies that are in accordance with it. Only a third have Core Strategies anyway and the abolition of RSSs means policy gaps and reductions in housing land supply. This will trigger the presumption for most planning applications, leaving LPAs, developers and lawyers to interpret the woolly wording of the presumption. I suspect there will be a glut of allowed appeals, followed by LPAs waving through applications in fear of costs. Back to the 80s, Back to the Future. More here: http://planningrulesblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/presumption-in-favour-of-unbridled.html

  • http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com andrewlainton

    Eric has just decided the first housing supply recovered case on the basis of ‘planning for growth’ – remarkably, and in the wake of CALA II, he upheld the inspectors recommendation ON THE BASIS OF THE RSS HOUSING TARGETS

    Clearly growth trumps localism every time.

    Expect a flood of appeals now on major housing sites. No reason now for housebuilders not to quickly draw up am outline scheme and get an appeal in, threatening costs for ‘an unecessary’ appeal

    http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/pickles-in-a-pickle-at-picketts-upholds-rss-targets-in-landmark-picketts-piece-appeal/

Latest jobs Jobs web feed